Posted on 02/05/2003 2:25:08 AM PST by MadIvan
Serious new doubts emerged today over America's ability to make any significant contribution to the international space programme for almost a decade.
Just hours after President Bush paid tribute to the Columbia space shuttle's seven astronauts and rededicated the nation to space travel, White House scientific advisers admitted they believe Nasa will not replace the lost space shuttle Columbia for around 10 years, sticking to a schedule that may force the agency to rely more on Russia to supply the International Space Station.
The emotional depth of President Bush's memorial address was undeniable. "They go in peace for all mankind. And all mankind is in their debt," he told at least 10,000 Nasa workers, aging astronauts, political leaders and families of the fallen crew for a memorial service in a plaza outside Mission Control usually reserved for celebrations of space triumphs.
"Each of these astronauts had the daring and the discipline required of their calling," he said. "Each of them knew great endeavours are inseparable from great risk, and each accepted those risks willingingly in the cause of discovery. America's space programme will go on," the President pledged.
But budget restraints mean the dead astronauts' wish to see the shuttle programme continue despite the tragedy, as conveyed by their families and friends, may not be realistic. Building a replica shuttle would be too costly, leaving a next-generation "orbital space plane" due to enter service around 2010 as the earliest possible relief for the remaining three shuttles, which could keep flying for decades to come, according to experts advising Nasa and the White House.
"I don't think you could build a new shuttle if you wanted to. All the production facilities were shut down and I'm not sure the tooling is still there," said John Logsdon at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University.
Meanwhile, as the quest goes on to find the exact cause of the Columbia disaster, teams from Nasa have gone to California and Arizona after reports of debris from the Columbia disaster landing there.
Regards, Ivan
Think about the overwhelming stupidity of this statement for a moment. He's essentially saying that the whole of human society could never build another Model T Ford because the original assembly line was eventually retrofitted to make something else.
By that logic, McDonald's would still be on its first restaurant.
The time for new technology and flexibility is here......I sit like alot of people, numbed by the loss.
God Speed to them , and to a new orbital vehicle.
This snippet reveals the author as uninformed. The shuttle Columbia never visited the space station. Being the first shuttle constructed, it was too heavy to be boosted to the altitude of the ISS. It's loss has no effect on the space station program other than to call into question the safety and reliability of the Shuttles in general.
A_R
The ISS is actually in a fairly low orbit. The problem is the high inclination, which was selected to accomadate the Russians, requires more energy. The Columbia could have made it to the ISS, however it wouldn't have been able to carry the heavy payloads required.
Serious new doubts emerged today over America's ability to make any significant contribution to the international space programme for almost a decade.
I vividly remember hearing this "ten year setback" line in the weeks after Challenger. I could see ten years before a new space plane flies, but otherwise this is bunk.
Think of the many "exploration" ships coming to the shores of America and other countries that are at the bottom of the seas of our universe.
The stats come after.
I assume you want to fund it with your own money. I'd opt out if they didn't have their guns trained on me.
History is replete with it, but that doesn't make it right. Back in the early eighteen hundreds, Jefferson's use of tax money to finance exploration was wrong IMO, even though it was exciting and useful to future travelers.
We went from folks in Conestoga wagons, to rails, to airplanes. We went from millions of acres of barren lands to a land to house and feed billions of people.
We have built a nation from sea to sea as a result of that preliminary exploration. We may have paid for this but it has paid us back a million fold.
Your grandparents were likely immigrants. Where would you be now???
Not to mention that you seem to be making the case that all of those things could not have been accomplished absent government force.
Therein lies the problem with this thinking. Just as it would be silly to start production of Model Ts, it would be silly to build another shuttle. We can do better.
I just hope that whoever has the president's ear on this issue realizes the single most important aspect of the next launcher is economics. We really don't need another white elephant that only the government can afford.
The Federal Government (1785)set up the criteria for the division and exploration of Federal Lands (Northwest Territory)into what would become states and further divisions. It is contained in the Congressional Records and remains relatively unchanged to this day.
The money from the sale of the Federal Lands went into the Federal coffers as do present day rentals of federal timber, oil and mineral lands.
As an investment, we got our money back.
Lewis & Clark and their men got paid practically nothing for what they produced and endured. This was a scientific journey-"men trained in astronomy, botany and medicine". You're looking at it as some sort of field trip. Look at it as the beginning of mapping the lands for all the immigrants that would come to the United States to settle. You're grandparents are likely among them. So many benefactors on the exploratory work of "A FEW GOOD MEN".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.